Irritated isn't the word

[Indigo]

Anyone else getting fed up of this?

Whenever I do a WS-type google search, I turn up zillions of hits for sites with names that begin with any of the following:

0piss/org
1pissing.org
1goldenshower.org
2pee.org
4watersports.org
men-pissing.org
peeing1.org
pissinggirls.org
wee-wee.org
wetclothes.org
wet-panties.org
wetpants.org

All of these (and doubtless a few others that I've not listed) don't lead to the content promised by the Google search at all (which is often something from here of Shara&Ger's - once or twice I've turned up a clip from my own writings which ONLY appear on these two sites) - rather it takes you to a portal site htp://golden-showers.org/ which is devilishly difficult to get back out of (you've got to double click very fast on "Back" to escape) and doesn't appear to be what I want at all. All the links appear to lead to pretty unpleasant-looking hardcore sites.

Am I alone in finding this annoying?

Does anyone know how I can screen these hits out, bearing in mind that I always have to clear all cookies, temporary files and history off my computer at the end of a WS surfing session, so that other users of the computer don't accidentally stumble upon the sites I'v ebeen visiting.

[Ger]

I'm dunno why you mention our site in this. Do we have links to any of those sites you mention? I didn't think so.

There are a lot of "fake" sites that use the words people enter in Google. They make up a completely non-excisting site and automatically add your searching words in it. So if you enter 'wet her pants' you can end up finding a site that says it contains 'mercedes mazda wet her pants victory' etc. If you click on it you go to a complete other site.

I even saw sites popping up in Google that had exactly our URL but with a non-excisting subdirectory behind it. Clicking on it leads you to some kind of commercial paysite.

Next to that Google keeps track of what you are normally looking for. It will recognize after a while that you often look for words like wet pants or piss or whatever. Even when you don't look for them it will still come up with those sites after a while. That can be embarrasing when a stranger is doing a Google search on your computer. Google puts cookies on your computer to do this. It may help to tell your firewall that google.com is not allowed to do this.

It's kinda interesting that in your case you only get .org sites that are "fake". If I do a Google search I always put my search words between quotes. Apparentely that helps a bit and most of those automated fake sites don't put your seach words in their fake url.

I know it's off topic and published here before but here's a bit of how Google works. (Not my text)

1. Google's immortal cookie:
Google was the first search engine to use a cookie that expires in 2038. This was at a time when federal websites were prohibited from using persistent cookies altogether. Now it's years later, and immortal cookies are commonplace among search engines; Google set the standard because no one bothered to challenge them. This cookie places a unique ID number on your hard disk. Anytime you land on a Google page, you get a Google cookie if you don't already have one. If you have one, they read and record your unique ID number.

2. Google records everything they can:
For all searches they record the cookie ID, your Internet IP address, the time and date, your search terms, and your browser configuration. Increasingly, Google is customizing results based on your IP number. This is referred to in the industry as "IP delivery based on geolocation."

3. Google retains all data indefinitely:
Google has no data retention policies. There is evidence that they are able to easily access all the user information they collect and save.

4. Google won't say why they need this data:
Inquiries to Google about their privacy policies are ignored. When the New York Times (2002-11-2 asked Sergey Brin about whether Google ever gets subpoenaed for this information, he had no comment.

5. Google hires spooks:
Matt Cutts, a key Google engineer, used to work for the National Security Agency. Google wants to hire more people with security clearances, so that they can peddle their corporate assets to the spooks in Washington.

6. Google's toolbar is spyware:
With the advanced features enabled, Google's free toolbar for Explorer phones home with every page you surf. Yes, it reads your cookie too, and sends along the last search terms you used in the toolbar. Their privacy policy confesses this, but that's only because Alexa lost a class-action lawsuit when their toolbar did the same thing, and their privacy policy failed to explain this. Worse yet, Google's toolbar updates to new versions quietly, and without asking. This means that if you have the toolbar installed, Google essentially has complete access to your hard disk every time you phone home. Most software vendors, and even Microsoft, ask if you'd like an updated version. But not Google.

7. Google's cache copy is illegal:
Judging from Ninth Circuit precedent on the application of U.S. copyright laws to the Internet, Google's cache copy appears to be illegal. The only way a webmaster can avoid having his site cached on Google is to put a "noarchive" meta in the header of every page on his site. Surfers like the cache, but webmasters don't. Many webmasters have deleted questionable material from their sites, only to discover later that the problem pages live merrily on in Google's cache. The cache copy should be "opt-in" for webmasters, not "opt-out."

8. Google is not your friend:
Young, stupid script kiddies and many bloggers still think Google is "way kool," so by now Google enjoys a 75 percent monopoly for all external referrals to most websites. No webmaster can avoid seeking Google's approval these days, assuming he wants to increase traffic to his site. If he tries to take advantage of some of the known weaknesses in Google's semi-secret algorithms, he may find himself penalized by Google, and his traffic disappears. There are no detailed, published standards issued by Google, and there is no appeal process for penalized sites. Google is completely unaccountable. Most of the time they don't even answer email from webmasters.

9. Google is a privacy time bomb:
With 150 million searches per day, most from outside the U.S., Google amounts to a privacy disaster waiting to happen. Those newly-commissioned data-mining bureaucrats in Washington can only dream about the sort of slick efficiency that Google has already achieved.

[~*~ k a t e ~*~]

Can you give us an example of exactly what your search terms were? I don't think I've ever come across those sites before, but I rarely search vague terms on Google. There are various little tips and tricks you can use to make it work a lot better that I've found out about: the most obvious being if you encase your terms in quotation-marks it will only search for the words in that order, and the closest booleans...

I'm not sure if Google is the best search engine out there (probably is), but it's definitely the most popular and due to that it's open to the most abuse by people who want you to visit their yucky porn sites (having said that, most of the other search engines are based on Google's source-code so they're likely to return very similar results); for instance, if you search katykins on Google you'll get a whole bunch of nasty porn links purporting to lead to pee-sex sites. I'm not sure whether to be pissed off at that or proud that they consider my old nickname synonymous enough with wetting to draw in ignorant traffic... Hmmm...

If the search words are even vaguely sex-related, the last few pages of any Google search will contain a stack of obvious porn death-trap sites that people very quickly learn to avoid. I doubt there's a way to avoid the results without clicking on the "safe-search" filter, which inevitably also filters out anything interesting at all, and yes, I find it incredibly annoying, too!

[Adrian]

At one time I used to use Excite a lot because it produced results in order of relevance, i.e. it would tell you if a page was say 90%, 75% or 50% relevant to your search terms. I don't know whether that's the case now or not.

:?:

[Crazyhorse]

Google is shite, and has been for years.

Even a 'normal' search for stuff mostly just returns stupid price comparison websites, which are sponsored by global multi-nationals to get you to use their online shopping rip-offs.

Unfortunately rampant commercialism seems to have buggered much of the internet in only a few years. Still, like with politics in the late 60's, the almost view of a world in the control of the ordinary citizen was fascinating.

[~*~ k a t e ~*~]

Google is shite

What should we be using instead?

[Sunway]

Surprisingly, I found this site last summer using "Ask Jeeves" and by inserting, "pantie wetting" into the search engine.

I had already used "google" with no real help.

I now always use jeeves, which I usually find really helpful.

[DARLENE]

Yes Google is getting too big for its britches..

You know, if you type in your phone number, then you get your address and name and if you want a map right to your house.

It may seem harmles, but sometime just type in your last real name, and whatch the fun.

Hey, if a youngster is somehow made to put in his phone number they know right where to go. Amen Same for the Law too, the FEDs and locals.

I clear my puter every day or so. Iget so many spies I dont know where they come from, but most are "Data Miner" and just recently just killed off 35 (ya that many) Trojan horses, apparently didnt do much as they musta be held off, but it took a half hour to clean my puter

As for sites that come up, and you have anti pop up and they still come? That sounds like Trojan. I to to my security and actually type in the URL and the name of the site I wont permit. It works.

Ya Google does ok but you get so much crap when surfin for something, but at least we have anti pop up protection as we didnt have long ago.

Donnie

Darlene

[Ape]

Yes Google is getting too big for its britches..

You know, if you type in your phone number, then you get your address and name and if you want a map right to your house.

Well, maybe you shouldn't be giving it out like an old whore!

[Crazyhorse]

Ask Jeeves is quite good. You dont get so many promotional sites as Google.

I think another problem with Google is that it seems to list sites in order of popularity (hits I assume), so once a site is visited many times I just keeps on being listed at the top, so more people visit it....etc...etc

[~*~ k a t e ~*~]

You know, if you type in your phone number, then you get your address and name and if you want a map right to your house ... just type in your last real name, and whatch the fun

This is absolutely not the case.

If you can type your real last name into Google and have it return information on you then you are either extremely famous or have a very common name. As for a phone number resulting in an address or a map to your house, there are obviously directory and map sites out there that work in that way but not Google.

Google are branching out with plenty of interesting (but mostly embryonic) side projects - you can find out about them by clicking the "more >>" link towards the top right of the Google home-page - and maybe in future they will include some kind of telephone directory, - that would actually be quite handy!


Ya Google does ok but you get so much crap when surfin for something ... Iget so many spies I dont know where they come from

Erm... Google is just a search engine. I think you'll find it's actually the dodgy sites you choose to visit after clicking on them in your search results that install rogue applications on your computer. You can never be 100% certain that a site is virus-free, but you can tell the ones that aren't a mile off!

[bloom061604]

You know, if you type in your phone number, then you get your address and name and if you want a map right to your house ... just type in your last real name, and whatch the fun

This is absolutely not the case.

If you can type your real last name into Google and have it return information on you then you are either extremely famous or have a very common name. As for a phone number resulting in an address or a map to your house, there are obviously directory and map sites out there that work in that way but not Google.
Based on my observation, Kate is right about the name, but entering the phone number in Google will ultimately take you to a map pinpointing a person's location. Here's how it works, at least with US phone numbers — if you enter the number in Google, it will bring up the person's full name and address, with links to Yahoo! Maps and MapQuest. Clicking either of these links will take you to a roughly 4 mile X 4 mile map section, with zooming capability, with a star indicating the person's location. It's pretty accurate. I just tried it on my own number and those of several people I know.

Sorry I couldn't find a way to work pants-wetting into this. :)

—Bloom

[~*~ k a t e ~*~]

Thanks, Bloom - I stand totally corrected!

Living in England I've never been aware of that feature; it doesn't seem to work with UK numbers...

[Wet Pacific Northwest]

Only if your number is published. Unlisted / non-published
numbers do not come up. So the effect is the same as a
stranger looking you up in a reverse phone directory - if
you aren't listed, they won't find you.

[WT]

To all tempted to try this, especially with broadband rather then dial-up, remember that Google store all searches with your IP address. So, if you search for yourself, Google's database will then have a pretty good tie up between your ISP, computer, address and phone number.

Bearing in mind that many sites tie posts to IP address (Wet Set displays them, for example), that's pretty much as good as signing your posts with your real name...

While interesting (and thanks to those who have posted about this), I am definitely not going to search for my phone number in Google and I would strongly advise others not to either.

[Val]

I've understood that Google got the advantage because it was the first to omnitor hits into sites (I'm not sure how) instead of just their outward connections. That way it could get the most popular first and bypassed a lot of the misleading topic information some put in the header. The trouble is that this could create a circular situation.

[Ger]

...remember that Google store all searches with your IP address. So, if you search for yourself, Google's database will then have a pretty good tie up between your ISP, computer, address and phone number.

Bearing in mind that many sites tie posts to IP address (Wet Set displays them, for example), that's pretty much as good as signing your posts with your real name...

You got the clue WT. That's indeed what Google does and a good reason to not have your phone number listed. Also a good reason to stay away from posting at Wetset and other sites that post your ISP# with it. Google indeed connects all the info they can grab about you. That includes your "web surfing" behaviour and also your modem ID#.

Ger.

[Crazyhorse]

What do they intend to do with all this information?

There must be billions of search requests on Google every day. Surely, they cant wade through that lot just to find if someone has searched for a pee site. If anyone did do a search it doesn't mean they visited any or all of the sites, and even if they did visit one or more of the sites that they searched for, that is not illegal. So what is the point?

Governments eavesdrop everywhere, and your emails, mobile phone conversations, etc can be intercepted whenever they like, but unless you are engaged in activities that are against the law, or likely to undermine the state, then they dont have the resources to question everyone who types something risque into a search engine. In fact, during those heated arguments prior to the invasion of Iraq, I was convinced that a member of some security service somewhere was replying on this board, disguised as one of us, because of the sheer violence of their threats when I deliberately advocated something close to anarchy.

And I'm sure that if anyone wants to find someones address or telephone number that desperately, they will do so, Google or no Google.

Are we not letting our own paranoia run away with us? Or maybe a guilty conscience is getting the better of some of us?

[WT]

Crazyhorse,

They use the legal stuff to target you with ads (the ones that appear at the top of Google search results), tailored to your browsing and preferences. This makes them a load of money because the advertisers pay them far more for that than they would just to put a banner ad on every page about whatever. I have no objection to this, as the sponsored links are clearly marked as such and I've found useful ones that way before now.

In the UK, there has been a recent programme of country-wide arrests, now over a period of 12-18 months, of paedophiles. The press release say that it was people who gave credit card details to a certain site that had been taken over by the FBI but the numbers involved make that a dubious explanation. It is quite likely that the FBI got a subpoena and trawled Google's records for paedophilia searches. So, if you search for illegal activities like paedophilia or bomb making, you are at risk and, for the protection of the rest of us, I would not argue with that.

Panty wetting is legal at the moment but, if a reactionary government with a small majority under pressure from religious groups got into power in the USA, who is to say how they might change the law. US law takes no account of extra-territoriality so, even if something is legal in Europe and your data here is protected by European data protection laws, that doesn't stop the US, notwithstanding legal agreements signed by the US companies importing the European data (typically, global banks and your credit card data, but it applies to everything).

Is this paranoia? Ask the Europeans who have been detained, treated roughly (eg, refused water for 36 hours and verbally abused), locked up for 36 hours without legal process and then deported without being allowed into the USA beacause thier name was mistaken by the US immigration computer for someone else, because they had been investigated for a crime they didn't commit by a European police force that had forgotten to close the file, or because of a spent conviction so minor and so long ago that, by law, UK authorities are not permitted to use it. I would conclude that there is little problem to data being stored if we stay in Europe but, if the US were to make panty wetting illegal, don't even think about visiting there or attemting to transit through the USA (people not even trying to enter the USA have also been locked up). To my mind, it not paranoia, it's straightforward logical risk assessment based on the known and observed facts and the current behaviour of certain governments.

What should happen? Well, for the protection of us all, it is reasonable to collect the data. Google should make it far clearer what they do with it and how long they keep it in their terms, which should be much more accessible than a small link off a page from a small link etc - possibly even to the extent of a warning on their front page that data will be retained and used to target you with advertising that will be marked as such. The US should enact data protection laws similar to the best practice ones in Europe. Then, data could be used while it is current and, when it no longer is, after a year or two say, it should be permanently deleted and there should be an agency of government enforcing this. Trawls of data by government bodies should have to be authorised independently and subject to judicial review. Deleting the data solves the problem of trawling data retrospectively, for example after changing the law: after it is deleted, nobody can do this because it is not there any more. Meanwhile, for that year or two, we are all protected because properly authorised government agencies can trawl the data for current threats for which they can make the case, eg, terrorism.

Lest my US friends think this is an anti-US rant, that's not how it is intended. It's simply that, with the current US law and administration, it's the USA where it's happening. There's not even much you can do about it as I don't think voting for someone else would fix it as the law was the same under the previous administration too.

[~*~ k a t e ~*~]

Bearing in mind that many sites tie posts to IP address (Wet Set displays them, for example), that's pretty much as good as signing your posts with your real name...

Correct me if I'm wrong (I often am - lol) but... Not really, right? The IP address that shows up on wetset (or wherever one surfs) is the IP number of your ISP, not of your personal computer, so it's more like signing your posts "yours sincerely, Telewest Blueyonder" (or whichever provider you use).

I've done a lot of WHOIS enquiries on a lot of IP numbers in my time moderating thePOOL chatroom and I've never had a result that gives me someone's name and address. It's always the name and official address of their service provider, with a rough geographical location. Unless of course they're hosting themselves...

[WT]

That is reasonably correct, Kate, but wasn't the point. Broadband ISPs tend to use the same IP address for the same person if they stay logged on or reconnect again fairly soon (typically 72 hours). So, for such users, IP adress ~= username.

When you type your phone number into Google to check it (you are more likely to do it than anyone else), the Google search records IP address and search. So Google now has username ~= IP address ~= name = address = phone number. That is the point that I was making as to why I am not going to search for my own details on Google.

My point on signing posts with your own name related to a security organisation (or Google) using the Google records. They can see the Wet Set post by 1.2.3.4 look it up using the Google data and know that it was by Kate. Of course, they could get the same information if they had access to the ISP records but, for European ISPs, that data is strictly controlled and deleted after a time. After that, the tracing could not be done that way. But, if you've got all your details stored on Google, you could be traced forever...

[~*~ k a t e ~*~]

OK, fine - but I don't actually care if Google, utterly theoretically, could piece together that information about me. Apart from extensive use of kazaa-lite, I don't do anything illegal online and have nothing to hide.

It's like when you see people interviewed on TV news who are "outraged" that we may have to carry ID cards in a few years... How could you possibly disagree with that unless you intend to break the law?? Can you imagine their rant??:

"How dare the government require me to be able to prove who I am?!! I demand the right to go anywhere and do anything I want without trace or alibi!! And, for that matter, how dare you search me before I board this aeroplane??!!"



**before the flames come, please bear in mind, while this post is sort-of representative of my point of view, it was wholly written in the spirit of parody**

[Val]

Their original reson was to build an intelligent database for their own search algorithms. Of course what they do with that afterwards, especially as others now use the same kind of algorithm, is a differenct matter. But there is the possibility of just too much information except for automated searches. All the same, it's a little daunting to put a pseudonym in and find ancient contact ads, as some warped bint trying to prove me a paedophile did. She didn't find anything like that but she did come up with wet and bondage references to crow about.

[Crazyhorse]

WT, I understand the point you are making, but much of your basis for the point stems from if's and maybe's concerning the politics of a future government, plus a few examples from the millions of tourists who pass in and out of the US every year. There are bound to be a few mistakes made when data is stored on computers, but does that really mean the whole thing is one big conspiracy? You may not like the word paranoia, but it seems a pretty close description to me.

And using the arrest of paedophiles to back all this up is like using the arrest of Harold Shipman to say you will never visit a doctor again. The paedophile business involves all sorts of illegal under-age activities, so anyone who subscribes to those sites knows that they are breaking laws by doing so, and encouraging the sites owners to do so as well. This cannot be said about pee sites, and even if some retrospective law was passed they would be on shaky ground unless you continued to search for illegal sites after they changed the law, because joining when it was legal and leaving when it was not, is not a crime.

If you really do want a conspiracy theory to 'get your teeth into' then dont bother with all seeing search engines - try something closer to home such as this I found on the net:-



So...* Did you enjoy that nice, cold, tall glass of water you had a while ago?* Well, you may want to consider drinking something else!* We have done some research into common drinking water and found that most of North America is affected by one specific chemical......* You guessed it!* FLUORIDE!* Several connections can be made with this chemical.* Some of them may frighten you just a little.* First of all, we will tell you a little about what fluoride does and what it's capable of.



Fluoride became a public-health measure intended to prevent tooth decay.* Experimental programs involving artificial fluoridation at selected sites were conducted in the 1930's to test its benefits, but before completion of the programs the US Public Health Service officially endorsed fluoridation in 1950.* About 50% of the US population use fluoride, with similar or higher percentages in Canada.* All this despite the fact that many other nations reject or ban this chemical agent.* In 1960, the American Dental Association recognised Procter & Gamble's fluoride-filled Crest toothpaste as effective against tooth decay.* Recent studies show fluoride may impair the functioning of the immune system.* Fluoride was essential for the manufacture of nuclear-weapons-grade uranium and plutonium.* Following World War II, chemists from I.G. Farben told US scientist Charles Perkins that the Third Reich had worked out a scheme involving the mass medication of drinking water as a means of controlling population using fluoride.

Fluoride is yet another government plan for mass Mind Control.



Still doubtfull?* Read on............



The company we spoke of earlier, IG Farben?* This was a HUGE Nazi Germany chemical cartel.* It manufactured sarin and Soman, a Fluorinated nerve gas.* After WWII, the company signed deals with Nestle, Bayer, and Procter & Gamble.* Then, what do you know......* In 1955, P&G introduced CREST, the first toothpaste to contain fluoride!



But wait!!!!!* That's not all?!* We all know of the American Dental Association's approval of Crest, right?* Well, perhaps they are co-conspirators?



Here's another Big-Name which is involved! Du Pont.* The Du Pont family effectively owns the state of Deleware, controlling its state and local governments, it's papers, and it's radio and TV stations.* Du Pont also mnufactured TONS of Fluoride, which was used for the building of the Manhattan Project's atomic bomb.* The conspirators are rewarding this family with success and power!



Yep......* That's right!* The US used Fluoride in the Manhattan Project.* Certain members working on the bomb were also involved in the development of a Mind Control "truth drug" at St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Washington DC, as part of the CIA's MK-ULTRA project.* The project started off in New York City, where scientists in upstate New York produced MASSIVE amounts of fluoride for the project (As did a Du Pont chemical factory in New Jersey, where huge amounts of fluoride "accidentally" were released into nearby drinking water), since fluoride was essential for the manufacture of nuclear-weapons-grade uranium and plutonium.



Well...* Now what do you think of that tall glass of water?* Not so appealing, huh?* With all these connections and effects of fluoride, we should be very cautious as to what is happening.* If you live in a big city, there may not be much to do, but, if not, find some spring-water!

[WT]

You are right Crazyhorse: risk planning is all about ifs and buts. Do governments change? Well... look at Nazi Germany, any number of revolutions in the Third World, Iraq... Do governments enact retrospective legislation? Yes, the current UK government has retrospectively changed taxation of pension plans after we put in the money (and made past war crimes in another country illegal).

Is that paranoia? No. Paranoia is having delusions which may involve an irrational fear of conspiracies, other people etc. Just thinking about issues and taking reasonable steps to avoid them without being fearful of them or having delusions about them is not paranoia. Use a dictionary.

Do I use fluoride? Yes. I was born in London with mineral-rich water and had no dental caries as a child. I moved to the countryside with lovely soft water when I was developing my adult teeth and had many fillings in my molars in my late teens and early twenties. I started using fluoride toothpaste and later fluoride mouthwash and I later moved back to London. My teeth have been stable for about 10-15 years. Is my tap water controlling my mind? Doubtful. Will I go on using fluoride? YES!!!

[Crazyhorse]

Yes, fluoride is very effective. I am the opposite to you. I grew up in a country location where the water may not have had any treatment, but I cant be sure. I had loads of teeth filled before I left school. Since then I have lived in more urban locations and have had no teeth problems that I can remember, although according to one of my more morbid colleagues at work the mercury in the amalgam is steadily poisoning me.
I wont stop using it either but it makes me wonder, especially now mrs crazyhorse spends all her time watching repeats of House Doctors on cable. I will put that down to the tap water from now on :wink:

Actually, after using a dictionary as you suggest, I find that I am the one suffering the paranoia. I dont particularly disagree with your precautions and was trying to be a bit Devils Advocate, but it does seem as if wetting is becoming a little more mainstream (if the tv interest in Skymouse is anything to go by) rather than the opposite. I dont think taxing pensions is a fair example of taking action retrospectively after legislation, it is just money grabbing by the chancellor. Now if they arrested all foxhunts after it becomes illegal this weekend, just because they hunted in the past, then that would be interesting.

[WT]

I think the point about taxing pensions is a bit more technical than your summary, and it is closer to the example you quote than maybe you realise. I entirely agree that it is also money grabbing by the Chancellor.

Without going into all the details, the retrospective element regarding pensions is:
When I started paying into the pension fund, I got tax relief, the fund did not pay tax and I would pay tax on the pension when I draw it in the future. So, like income I spent then instead of saved, it would be taxed exactly once throughout my life.
The Chancellor changed the rules. When I pay in money now, I get tax relief, the fund pays tax and I would pay tax on the pension when I draw it. I'm now paying two lots of tax in my life related to this income. OK, I don't like it, but I still pay into my pension knowing that will happen, so it's my choice.
Now here's the rub. The Chancellor is now taking tax on the fund that I paid into before he changed the rules. Because it's a pension fund, I am not allowed to change or touch it in any way to avoid the tax. So, on money I put into a pension fund 20 years ago, I am now paying extra tax not envisaged or in the rules at the time and cannot change the arrangements to avoid it. And I will pay tax again when I draw the pension. That is definitely retrospective according to all the major financial planning organisations and, in addition, breaches one of the guiding principles of UK tax: namely, that each element of income will be taxed once in a person's life.

Apparently, most of the mercury at the surface leaks into you just after the filling. During the life of it, little escapes unless a bit breaks off exposing a new surface. I got fed up with the maintenance of amalgam fillings on my main chewing teeth and had those done in gold, which is much stronger. The only problem is that, occasionally, they come unstuck and have to be re-cemented. If one didn't notice and swallowed (and dentists say that happens quite often), there is then an unpleasant choice between paying for a new gold filling or retrieving it around three days later... :oops: